RUSH: From the e-mail: “Dear Rush, you are truly a brilliant man in regard to politics and business, but you are way off base in thinking that consensus isn’t important in science. This is probably related to your lack of formal education. It isn’t necessary for everything, Rush, as you have so ably shown, but it’s useful for some things, science isn’t at all the way you probably taught in high school. What science is is an attempt to understand things. A given group of data may be interpreted in several ways by multiple observers. ‘Consensus’ is definitely important in that the more observers– i.e., scientists– that agree with a given interpretation, the more likely said the interpretation is accurate.
“Although, this is not guaranteed. The crowd has been found to be wrong occasionally.” Do you believe this? (laughing) You know, throughout the history of this program, whenever I would talk about science, the e mails would erupt with people — some of them not as nice as this guy, but all of them as arrogant. “Shut up! You don’t know what you’re talking about. You start talking about science and you make a fool of yourself.” So, here’s this guy. Let me read it to you again. “What science is is an attempt to understand things. A given group of data may be interpreted in several ways by multiple observers. ‘Consensus’ is definitely important in that the more observers– i.e., scientists– that agree with a given interpretation, the more likely said the interpretation is accurate.
“Although, this is not guaranteed. The crowd has been found to be wrong occasionally.” Well, this is precisely my point: There…is…no…proof! There is no scientific unarguable, unalterable law that says, “Manmade global warming is happening,” and yet to this guy we just have to accept that because a bunch of scientists think it is. Now, I’m sorry, “consensus” has no role in real science. Scientific discovery isn’t up to a vote. I love the “Earth-around-the-moon,” “moon-around-the-Earth,” “sun-around-the-Earth” analogy.
What if a consensus, what if a vast majority of scientists actually believed that the sun orbited the Earth? According to this guy, that would make it true. If enough people believed it, if a consensus could be produced, then it would make it true. “Scientific law is actually an observation that is so often consistent that it can be assumed it will happen again. “Even this isn’t entirely true. Newton’s Law in physics do not strictly apply in the subatomic world; i.e., quantum physics. Keep up the good work, though, Rush. Dittos on the show, but be aware you have limitations, albeit few.” (laughing) Never fails. Never fails. Every time I bring up science, I can find series of e-mails.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: And we have more e-mail to share with you here on Open Line Friday: “For crying out loud, Rush, you really have to work hard at not understanding this? While it’s true that a consensus is not required for something to be true, it does not follow that a consensus is forbidden in science. What if a majority of scientists agree on something that, by a strange coincidence, is also true? What then? You seem to be saying that such a situation is impossible, which is ridiculous.” Paul from Oak Harbor, Washington. What is it, folks…? I’m going to be very blunt here. Some of you need to slow down. You’re not as smart as you think. You just need to listen to something. When I say that if something is said to be true because of consensus, it can’t be science. Science is not up to a vote.
I don’t care if 9 out of 10 scientists agree on something that is true. The fact that they agree is not what makes it true! Scientists agreeing on something cannot make something true that is false. Science is independent of opinion. Science is what it is. True scientific discovery, inconvertible fact — however you want to define science — is immune to whatever human beings think it is or think of it. All I’m saying is that if we’re going to have a culture that believes that there is manmade global warming because there is a consensus of scientists who say so, then we’re on shaky ground, because a consensus of human beings cannot make something scientifically true. Now, a consensus of scientists can happen to agree on something that is true, but their agreement does not make it true.
The global warming crowd is trying to say that manmade global warming is true because of consensus of human beings (disguised as scientists) say it’s happening! What I’m telling you is those people have no more right to proclaim something to be scientifically true simply because they agree with each other or are scientists. Something is true in science or not independent of what anybody thinks about it. I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about this. There’s nothing “democratic” about science. A majority in anything has zilch to do with it. The sun… Let me put it this way: The Earth does not revolve around the sun because of the consensus of people says so.
The Earth revolves around the sun because the Earth revolves around the sun! We have been fortunate enough to learn enough to understand that it’s true, but it isn’t true because a bunch of people think it. Same thing with global warming. Manmade global warming is not true simply because a consensus of human beings says it’s true, but we’re told to accept — as science — manmade global warming because Al Gore believes it and a consensus of scientists who are being paid for it! Bunch of people say that “I’m in it for the money,” who literally sell their reputations, who sell their opinions. Politicians, too, will sell their votes for money. I don’t do that. But don’t try to be too smart by half here. It’s not complicated.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Jean in Bardstown, Kentucky. Great to have you on the EIB Network and Open Line Friday. Hi.
CALLER: It’s a great honor, Rush, but, Rush: When you’re using the arguments about consensus, scientific consensus and trying to convince people, Galileo Galilei is a perfect example. The church and church scientists of his day refuted him and they chastised him and put him under house arrest and they were going to execute him as a heretic until the Age of Enlightenment when everybody started to realize that Galileo Galilei was correct. He would have been put to death if everybody listened to the consensus. The consensus was wrong, but Galileo was correct.
RUSH: Sooooo you’re saying I should be put to death?
CALLER: No! No, no, no. I’m saying that consensus is not a truth, and Galileo Galilei was the perfect example, because he was correct, consensus was wrong, and they wanted to execute him.
RUSH: I appreciate that. Look, I’m continuing to get e-mails from now people identifying themselves as physicists and other scientists saying, “You don’t know what you’re talking about on this consensus business! Rush, it’s embarrassing to hear you.”
CALLER: Yeah.
RUSH: They’re saying, “You’re so right but you don’t know what you’re talking about on this consensus business.” “Science is all about,” this one guy just wrote, “when you don’t know anything — you are learning, you’re in discovery — and when a majority of scientists agree that’s the focal point that’s what you work on, there is consensus in science.” What is so hard to understand about what I said?
CALLER: I don’t know.
RUSH: The “consensus” doesn’t make it true is my only point!
CALLER: And the consensus at that time said… They stifled him and said they were going to put him under house arrest he can’t publish anything, he can’t talk about his theory; and then the braver scientists behind him started to come out and the chump changedhis mind. But that man could have been executed and the consensus would have won and they would have been wrong.
RUSH: That’s exactly right. I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about this.
CALLER: It’s amazing. Just amazing. And it’s very disheartening, I’ll tell you. It’s very disheartening.
RUSH: It’s disheartening because it’s not that tough. This is not that hard to understand.
CALLER: It’s not. I’m a scientist and I understand it.
RUSH: Well, these people disagree. They’re taking this personally.
CALLER: Right.
RUSH: You ought to read the e-mails out there that I’m getting, Jean. They’re taking this stuff personally.
CALLER: I know. It’s crazy.
RUSH: It really is.
CALLER: We’re living under very tough times. I’m 74 years old. I hope it gets better before I kick this life goodbye.
RUSH: Oh, it will. It will get better in a couple of years.
CALLER: (chuckles) I hope so.
RUSH: You don’t sound like a native of Kentucky.
CALLER: No, I’m a transplant New Yorker. I’ve been here two years, now. I came down to be with family and it’s quite an adjustment from New York to Kentucky. (chuckles)
RUSH: How long have you been there?
CALLER: Two and a half years.
RUSH: Two.
CALLER: Two years, excuse me.
RUSH: Two and a half years.
CALLER: Yeah.
RUSH: It’s great to hear from you. I appreciate the support. I was just kidding with you about whether or not I should be put to death.
CALLER: No, no, no! The consensus was wrong, and they were getting ready to put him to death.
RUSH: I know.
CALLER: Yeah.
RUSH: And there are countless examples within the scientific realm of this —
CALLER: Yup.
RUSH: — throughout human history of the belief that existed that turned out to be totally untrue and the applecarts that were upset with this when it happened. Anyway, Jean, thanks much.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: It’s about time, here. Dr. Roy Spencer, our official climatologist, has finally weighed in. He was, I guess, consensus building with his family and didn’t have time to reply until now. Dr. Spencer has sent in seven guidelines for me to share with you in the way he handles the issue of global warming and “consensus,” whether or not it is manmade.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: We have a scientist on the phone from Seaford, Delaware. This is Jack. Great to have you on Open Line Friday. Hi.
CALLER: Thank you, Rush. It’s great to be able to talk to you.
RUSH: I appreciate that.
CALLER: My subject is the so-called consensus on global warming.
RUSH: Right.
CALLER: And I am really qualified to talk about this. I studied weather in the Air Force. I studied weather in college. I really studied weather as a combat pilot in special operations in Korea where I had to land in North Korea repeatedly, so the weather was very important to me — and when I started hearing about this global warming, as a scientist, one thing we are — we are curious — and so I dug into it. And let me tell you, I’ve got two documents in my hands.
RUSH: Wait a minute. First thing, weather and climate, do you mean them interchangeably?
CALLER: Well, “weather” is short term. That’s like tactical —
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: — and climatology is long term. That’s strategic.
RUSH: Okay.
CALLER: So what the weather is short term and where it’s going is what you better know about it.
RUSH: Okay.
CALLER: And when I returned from Korea, I went to work. I was assigned to Headquarters, 1st Weather Group, for the Strategic Air Command and our job was to monitor and predict the weather during the Cold War over Russia. So I’m a recipient of a National Service Medal for my work in climatology.
RUSH: Wow, that’s impressive!
CALLER: Well, you know, they give you medals instead of money when you’re in the Air Force.
RUSH: Well, I don’t have any medals except for the ones I’ve given myself.
CALLER: Okay. (chuckles) But anyway, the one document I’ve got which is a press release from February ’09 by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, and he says: “We have just four months to secure the future of our planet.”
RUSH: I remember that. What a crock.
CALLER: Yeah, and he claims to have an international panel of 113 climate scientists who concluded that human activities are heating the planet.
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: I checked on some of the names and followed up and only like 27 of them have ever studied weather out of 113. In my other hand, I’ve got a petition signed by 31,000 scientists.
RUSH: Get this. I mention seven points that my own climatologist sent me.
CALLER: Uh-huh?
RUSH: He said he answers people with seven different points. The seventh point is that there has been virtually no research into the role of natural cycles in recent warming. Almost every century in the last 2,000 years has had substantial warming or cooling naturally. That’s never been studied. They don’t want to know the answer to what’s happening naturally because of it.
CALLER: It has been studied because I’ve studied it, okay? (chuckles) Let me tell you about this petition. It’s signed by 31,478 American scientists, including 9,000 Ph.D.s, which says that global warming is a crock — and I’m one of them.
RUSH: Well, God bless you, sir. That sounds like a consensus to me.
CALLER: That’s a real consensus. Are you familiar with the hockey stick curve?
RUSH: Yes, and that’s what’s been totally debunked as a hoax!
CALLER: Yup. The UN even pulled it out of their data because they were so embarrassed by it.
RUSH: Exactly. That’s what happened. That was one of the results of the e-mail dump from Hadley, the Climate Centre at the University of East Anglia. Well! I’m glad you got through there, Jack. I appreciate it.
END TRANSCRIPT
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.